act@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis) (12/04/84)
Below are some observations made by my wife about the recent brouhaha about the antiabortion film. I should add that I am in agreement with her. I also feel that there has been too much discussion of rarefied abstractions in this net group, and that people have gotten bogged down in discussions which resemble nothing so much as the Medieval philosophers' debates about saturation of pinheads with dancing angels. I thought that I'd contribute my wife's discussion because it raises some real and concrete issues which may help keep the discussions down to earth. ------------------------------------------------ Re: Ms. Allen What seems singularly absent from all the discussion of abortion is any mention of *children,* the invitable result of non-aborted pregnancies. Ms. Allen mentions with pride that she belongs to a group that places pregnant women with families while they're pregnant. Er, yes, Ms. Allen, but then what? The much touted "solution" of adoption really only works in those instances where the baby is in *perfect* physical & metal health, is white & has a mother who is willing to give it up. Otherwise, you have a woman who: a) is usually alone b) is likely to be underpaid because of sexual discrimination and/or interrupted education c) has to juggle taking care of the kid & a job (or welfare, but there's not so much of that to go around these days) d) frequently is a child herself e) frequently has a sick or handicapped child, espcially if d) is true f) may not be in such great shape herself, especially if d) is true. Who then takes care of that baby? Who pays for it? And who continues to take care of and pay for that child on an ongoing basis for 18 years as it grows from a cute little infant into a child and then an adolescent? What happens if that "delicately formed" little fetus grows up to be a severely handicapped little baby? We, as a country, have shown (by re-electing our "pro-life" prez) that we do not want the government to feed or care for poor or handicapped children. If that pregnant mother whom you have so kindly placed with some family cannot take care of her child, just who will? The point is, parenthood is a commitment. And commitments that aren't entered into voluntarily aren't too likely to be kept. In fact, the law recognizes that most commitments that one was coerced into making are not legally binding. But what the anti-abortionists seem to be arguing is that the responsibilities of parenthood are so trivial, so irrelevant, so beside the point that parenthood is the kind of commitment that one can be forced to make with no bad effects. Would anyone make the same kind of argument about any other commitment? In some ways, marriage is a "lesser" commitment than parenthood because if one partner is unable to keep his/er commitment, the other partner is nonetheless capable of taking care of him/erself. Yet who, in this country at least, argues that people should have no choice about if/when & whom they marry? One's responsibilities as a spouse are so much less than one's as a parent & yet *parenthood* is what people are trying impose on others. I have heard anti-abortionists claim that pro-choice advocates don't give the fetuses any choice. That is certainly true. But parents don't give their children, especially their younger children, much choice about anything. The usual assumption is that parents know more about what is good for their children than the child does. And the truth of the matter is that aborting a fetus may well be in best interests of the *child* as well as of the parent. How many children would *choose* to be born into a home in which they weren't wanted? How many children would *choose* to be born into a home in which they'd be abused? If Ms. Allen wishes to sensationalize things, she should remember that two can play that game. And she should remember that the child abuse statistics--& the nation's response to child abuse--are appalling enough that they really don't need to be sensationalized. Let's not dwell on the pain & fear that children who are physically &/or sexually abused undergo. Let's just look at *their* choices. First, you can stick around & hope you learn to duck/run well enough that you survive. This option does not work well for small children or babies, but then very little works well for small children or babies who are abused. (And they are the ones who are most likely to suffer when the mothers are teenagers and/or if they were unwanted. I think the incidence of child abuse among teenage mothers is 70%.) Lots of younger children simply get killed because they can't run &/or duck. So before you screech in horror too much about how *abortions* are performed, look at autopsy reports of abused children & find out what *one* of the alternatives to abortion really is. Are you seriously prepared to argue that it hurts *less* to have one's skull bashed in *after* one is born? The second option for abused children is that they can run away. Children who run away are treated like criminals if they are caught & sent to state institutions (see below for more details on those "humane" institutions). If they survive on the streets, they do so by breaking the law. One of the most common ways is by becoming prostitutes. There is of course, shoplifting and drug pushing or some combination of the three. Virtually every violent (& many of the non-violent) offenders in our nation's prison system were abused children, Ms. Allen. The third option is to tell someone. If you has an extended family near by that is willing to believe you & that is willing to risk alienating the abusive parent, this is probably the best solution. But how many children are that lucky? If you doesn't have a supportive relative, there is always the state. Ah, the state. Virtually every one of the 50 states' "juvenile justice" systems are at worst appalling & at best, non-uniformly mediocore. If a complaint is made about a child being abused, usually only that child is removed from the home at that time--the rest have to be beaten first to be removed. What happens to the battered child? S/he is sent to a foster home--if there is one open. (If all the children in a family are taken out at one time there is no guarantee--in fact little likelihood--that the siblings will be kept together.) Foster homes may or may not be carefully selected--depending on the state/social worker/whatever--& children are likely to be abused in foster homes, also. What if there are no foster homes available? Then there are those charming warehouses for tots--those training schools for little crimminals known as state institutions. Not only are victims of child abuse routinely put in the same kind of institutions as say, children who throw knives at their teachers, they are also subject to all kinds of abuse in these institutions. Older inmates may rape them, the staff may rape them, the staff may beat them, older kids may beat them & at the same time, the lesson they are learning best is how to become an adult criminals. You spoke of there needing to be a "window on abortion." I have just given you a "window" on how this country treats its children. And lest you think that I am only talking about some small number of children, remember that child abuse is estimated to take place in 1 out of 6 homes. And that child abuse occurs in the homes of the well-to-do as well as in the homes of the poor. America & America's parents have failed miserably in their commitment to their children. (Actually, I just told you about abused children. I didn't even address the issues of children who not abused but who are undernourished or children who are handicapped & have to live in other kinds of institutions.) Yet you wish to inflict this kind of torture on more children. When I go to Planned Parenthood to get my birth control pills, I am met by angry protesters who scream nasty things at me & at whoever goes to that clinic. These women spend hours of their time & effort & even money to force parenthood on the unwilling and the unable. (What they basically succeed in doing is scaring away teenagers who want birth control devices & then the teenagers get pregnant & then some of them are more scared of pregnancy than the protesters so they go in & have abortions. Or, to put it another way, these brilliant anti-abortionists probably cause more abortions than they prevent.) Yet they are unwilling to do anything for children who are alive now. I have asked everyone of those women how many handicapped children have they adopted. The answer is always zero. I have asked them how many interracial children they have adopted. Zero again. How many children who were not babies have they adopted? Zero yet again. Have they ever adopted any babies at all? No. Have they ever taken in foster children? No. What charities do they work on? Basically anti-abortion outfits. Have they ever funded a clinic similar to Planned Parenthood (except that it wouldn't do abortions)? No. Have they ever given poor women money to get either birth control or PAP smears? Of course not. Is it possible (as Letty Cottin Pogrebin suggests) that these people don't give a damn about children but only about pregnancy? Unborn fetuses are terribly easy to love--they are silent, relatively undemanding & "live" for only nine months. It's children who are difficult to love on an ongoing basis; it's children who require a lifelong commitment and it's children who are being *routinely* abused and neglected in this country. Therefore, it's also *children* whom we should be thinking of when we think of abortion. The moral issue is not "do I have a right to an abortion," but "do I have the right to bring a child into the world that I know I cannot take care of properly for 18 years & for whom no one else will take responsibility?" And people like Ms. Allen seem unwilling to make this a decent country for *children* to live in. Just *imagine* the difference it would make if the energy & the money put into the anti-abortion movement were spent on living children instead! Think of how beneficial it would be for everyone if the women who warp themselves by hissing "Nazi" at me or by bombing abortion clinics were to turn that emotional energy into love for living children! I'm not just pro-choice because I think the right to an abortion is a necessity; I'm pro-life because I care about the *living* more than I care about the unborn. And until I see the anti-abortionists listen to the very audible screams of living children, I'm not going to have too much empathy for their nightmares about the alleged "silent screams" of fetuses.
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/05/84)
> >What seems singularly absent from all the discussion of >abortion is any mention of *children,* the invitable result of >non-aborted pregnancies. Ms. Allen mentions with pride that >she belongs to a group that places pregnant women with >families while they're pregnant. Er, yes, Ms. Allen, but then >what? The much touted "solution" of adoption really only works >in those instances where the baby is in *perfect* physical & >metal health, is white & has a mother who is willing to give >it up. Otherwise, you have a woman who: >a) is usually alone >b) is likely to be underpaid because of sexual discrimination >and/or interrupted education >c) has to juggle taking care of the kid & a job >(or welfare, but there's not so much of that to go around >these days) >d) frequently is a child herself >e) frequently has a sick or handicapped child, espcially if d) is true >f) may not be in such great shape herself, especially if d) is true. >Who then takes care of that baby? Who pays for it? And >who continues to take care of and pay for that child on an ongoing basis >for 18 years as it grows from a cute little infant into a >child and then an adolescent? What happens if that "delicately >formed" little fetus grows up to be a severely handicapped >little baby? We, as a country, have shown (by re-electing our >"pro-life" prez) that we do not want the government to feed or >care for poor or handicapped children. If that pregnant mother >whom you have so kindly placed with some family cannot take >care of her child, just who will? For the sake of argument let's assume that the fact that many children are "unadoptable" justifies abortion. But it only justifies it *in those cases*. The abortion of a child somebody wants is still totally unjustified. So then is the answer to allow abortion only for the mothers of such children? I think that this line would generally fall along ethinic and racial boundries. We would end up aborting the children of racial minorities way out of proportion to their representation in society. Does the degree of "wantedness" of a human individual by others determine their value as human beings? I would be nice if everyone were wanted, but I don't think the fact that they're not makes anyone less human, less deserving of their own chance at life. I think that if children of minorities are unadoptable it shows that in the values of many there is a racial bias that is in itself, wrong. It seems to me that you are suggesting that we accommodate that bias by allowing abortion in such cases. But what about abortion potentially adoptable babies? It seems we have to allow it there too so as not to be discriminatory in our abortion policy even though abortion in such cases would be totally unjustified by your criterion. What should happen in cases like that in Indiana where an infant with Down's Syndrome was allowed to starve to death at its parent's wishes when there were couples wanting to adopt it? What does this attitude do for the handicapped and the illegitimate and poor children and adults that are with us today? Are we telling them that it would have been better if they had been aborted (irrespective of whether or not they are/were adopted)? Sometimes I have wondered why so many insist that the government must take on the burden of the poor and needy. Government bureaucracy has often proven to be most expensive, least efficient, and most impersonal way of taking care of such needs. We can always blame the government for the poor and hungry. But I think the emphasis should be on citizen invlovment in meeting those needs. The government treats our tax money like an infinite resource and it's money often comes with strings attached or the threat of its removal is used coercively. I think that if we really cared we'd quit blaming the government and starting doing it better ourselves. Paying our taxes is no virtue when it comes to helping the underpriledged. I think we pay a high premium for giving government that responsibility. It doesn't matter who's in the White House. This is not to say that some government programs aren't justified but I don't think they need to be the main vehicle in our efforts to help. Surely the trend needs to be in the opposite direction. Why should you assume that because a person doesn't think the government should be meeting all the needs of the less priviledged they don't care about those people at all? How do you know what they are not personally doing to help? >The point is, parenthood is a commitment. And commitments that >aren't entered into voluntarily aren't too likely to be kept. >In fact, the law recognizes that most commitments that >one was coerced into making are not legally binding. >But what the anti-abortionists seem to be arguing is that the >responsibilities of parenthood are so trivial, so irrelevant, >so beside the point that parenthood is the kind of commitment >that one can be forced to make with no bad effects. >Would anyone make the same kind of argument about any other >commitment? In some ways, marriage is a "lesser" commitment >than parenthood because if one partner is unable to keep his/er >commitment, the other partner is nonetheless capable of taking care of >him/erself. Yet who, in this country at least, argues that >people should have no choice about if/when & whom they >marry? One's responsibilities as a spouse are so much less than >one's as a parent & yet *parenthood* is what people are trying >impose on others. This assumes that parenthood starts at birth. You can't argue with that assumption as a given because that is the crux of the abortion issue. Pregnancy is only involuntary as the result of rape. Nobody is saying that voluntary sex has only to do with pregnancy, but you can't assume it has nothing to do with it either. Is the desire to have uncommitted sex really the motive behind legal abortion? >I have heard anti-abortionists claim that pro-choice advocates >don't give the fetuses any choice. That is certainly true. But >parents don't give their children, especially their younger >children, much choice about anything. When they don't give them the choice of whether or not to live we but them in big trouble. Are you saying that because parents make most choices for young children they have the right to decide if they should die? >The usual assumption is >that parents know more about what is good for their children >than the child does. But that assumption is thrown out when the child's health is endangered by the parent. >And the truth of the >matter is that aborting a fetus may well be in best interests >of the *child* as well as of the parent. How many children >would *choose* to be born into a home in which they weren't >wanted? How many children would *choose* to be born into a >home in which they'd be abused? If they had the choice between that and death? Are there any other choices? The truth of the matter is that no one really knows with any given child how well they will value their life in any given situation. Why are you making that decision for them before they even have a chance to make it for themselves? No one ever gets to choose where they are born. Yet here you are acting as if that choice were possible for the child, you insert your own conclusion as its decision. >If Ms. Allen wishes to >sensationalize things, she should remember that two can play >that game. And she should remember that the child abuse >statistics--& the nation's response to child abuse--are >appalling enough that they really don't need to be >sensationalized. >Let's not dwell on the pain & fear that children who are physically >&/or sexually abused undergo. Let's just look at *their* >choices... [Continues by explaining the choices for abused children] What good has abortion on demand done for child abuse statistics? Can you show us? Is there any correlation between how much parents want the pregnanacy and how much they want the child after it's born? Two can play this came of inference also. The free availability of abortion might actually encourage attitudes that foster child abuse. Once the child is born the "choice" of parent- hood is suddenly gone. When the going gets rough there might be temption to think that this loss of choice is unfair. After all, they didn't really know what to expect, and if they had only thought about it a few months earlier they could have nipped their problems in the bud. It's easy for resentment to build against the child. If the child is abused, it's taken away and society supports it. There you have an abused child that was "wanted" during pregnancy. You may rightly argue that I have presented no data to support this connection. But that is my point. You have presented none to support yours either. Has child abuse really become less of a problem in the 13 years that we have had abortion on demand? >When I go to Planned Parenthood to get my birth control pills, >I am met by angry protesters who scream nasty things at me & >at whoever goes to that clinic. These women spend hours of >their time & effort & even money to force parenthood on the >unwilling and the unable. (What they basically succeed in >doing is scaring away teenagers who want birth control devices >& then the teenagers get pregnant & then some of them are more >scared of pregnancy than the protesters so they go in & have >abortions. Or, to put it another way, these brilliant >anti-abortionists probably cause more abortions than they >prevent.) Yet they are unwilling to do >anything for children who are alive now. I have asked everyone of those >women how many handicapped children have they adopted. The answer is >always zero. I have asked them how many interracial children >they have adopted. Zero again. How many children who were not >babies have they adopted? Zero yet again. Have they ever >adopted any babies at all? No. Have they ever taken in foster >children? No. What charities do they work on? Basically >anti-abortion outfits. Have they ever funded a clinic similar >to Planned Parenthood (except that it wouldn't do abortions)? >No. Have they ever given poor women money to get either birth >control or PAP smears? Of course not. Does all this really mean that people are wrong to oppose abortion? You might argue rightly that they are somewhat hyprocritical, but what a hypocrite says may still be right. My wife and I can answer "yes" to many the above questions and know many pro-life people who could say "yes" to the rest of them. Partially because of that we don't have time to picket clinics (though some have). If you are pro-choice, how may of your own questions can you answer? How much help the Planned Parenthood give to couples who *want* to have children rather than prevent them? I know a woman who went to PP for birth control and received help with that (and we all help them with part of our tax money don't we?) but when she wanted to get pregnant they told her she was on her own. Is this offering equal support for both choices? The PP clinic here provides not-for-profit abortions but in cases where people *want* to have children and have problems they are on their own ... and they are the "pro-lifer's" problem. Or are we going to help them with the attitude that "it would be best if you had had an abortion but..." You do very well to point out the uncaring attitude of many pro-lifers but don't you think these issues cut both ways for pro-choicers too? >I'm not just pro-choice because I think the right to an abortion is a >necessity; I'm pro-life because I care about the *living* more than >I care about the unborn. And until I see the anti-abortionists listen >to the very audible screams of living children, I'm not going to have >too much empathy for their nightmares about the alleged "silent screams" >of fetuses. It is only consistent for pro-lifers to care just as much for the born as the unborn and I think, as a people, they do. Not all pro-life people picket clinics. Some work in pregnancy distress centers like my wife and Liz. Some are involved in combatting child abuse (or did you think only pro-choice people did that?) and some are helping in prisions where a lot of those kids end up (like Charles Colson -- I know he's pro-life). His Prision Fellowship organization is more active in meeting the needs of prisoners and pushing for criminal justice reform than many I can think of. You seem to require an equal level of involvement in all these areas from every pro-life individual (at least the ones who picket PP -- Was Liz one of them?) Do you have the same standard for yourself? After all your burden should be lighter. You need care only about the "living", not the unborn. We have to consider the unborn a subset of the living. All the areas you mention are important. But if the unborn are included in the "living" then they are equally important. In a subsequent article to this one you make a plea for fraternal discussion of this issue. It's a very worthwile goal, but you need to help too. Perhaps, from your own standpoint, you can see how hard this is. It seems that you have used your experience with name calling, clinic bombing "pro-lifers" to brow beat Liz in this case. Fraternity requires that we treat each other as individuals and not bring the "sins" of other people on them. It is hard to convey a civil tone in writing, especially on issues like this. I have been read as being angry when I thought I was making an effort to sound reasonable. Clearly I need more practice, but I have learned to give others the benefit of my doubts. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (12/05/84)
** > What seems singularly absent from all the discussion of > abortion is any mention of *children,* the invitable result of > non-aborted pregnancies. Good point. The other day Ann Landers or Dear Abby had an article that said 40% of the children of teen-agers are deformed, retarded, or otherwise messed up, because of lack of pre-natal care, junk food, cigarettes and drugs, and the fact that many of the mothers are children themselves and are not biologically equipped to give birth. Instead of pro-life maybe the anti-abortion people should call themselves "pro-suffering." Isn't there some part of Christianity that makes suffering a good thing? That would explain it. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/
johnston@spp1.UUCP (12/06/84)
In response to a posting by Alex Tselis wife: Forgive me for not addressing every point and I'm not just selecting only those I can favorably refute. The article makes some good points and I would just like to offer a few comments. 1. Parenting is indeed a commitment and because a woman is biologically able to conceive does not qualify her for this. Yet she need not accept the responsibility of parenting if she is not committed. The choice to keep a baby after delivery is hers. Unfortunately, as you stated, adoptions for non-white or retarded children are low, but they do exist. Of course you also talked about the alternatives for children who aren't adoptable. Ugly situations can arise which brings up my next point. 2. If we are to have unwanted children (a situation I see with us irregardless of abortion), let's attack that problem directly. Solving the abuse of unwanted children can never be realized by attempting to slow down the production thereof. 3. I'm about to violate a basic rule of mine which is to offer a statistic without references. But I've read this from several sources and no source (including planned parenthood) has refuted it. The statistic (actually a statement, no numbers) is that the majority of abused children were not unwanted and abortion was not a consideration. To be sure, committment itself cannot produce always a good parent. Therefore abortion would not really effect a solution to child abuse. 4. I hope you're not seriously attempting to make a statement concerning the reluctance of anti-abortionist as a class to be concerned about children that are alive today based on some that you have talked to. I didn't think I needed to adopt a black child to be concerned or to be active in his plight. You might ask those questions to professional footbal players (or any group) and come up with the amazing statement that athletes are not concerned with the plight of children. 5. I wish also that the time, energy, and money directed against abortion were spent on living children. Unfortunately, I don't see the issue going away, since that would free up these resources. I might add how beneficial the time, energy, and money spent for abortions could be used not only for living children but to prevent conceptions. In summary, the problem of how children are handled in this world needs to be addressed independent of abortions. Since I don't follow your logic of disregard for living children being a result of concern for the unborn, it seems possible to be concerned about both. In other words concern and compassion for children irregardless of their state. You ask people to be compassionate for a child placed in an institution against his will. I ask for the same compassion for another child who also is in an institution of sorts against his will. This institution, at times, upholds a death penalty. Mike Johnston
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/08/84)
Right on!
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigleyact@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis) (12/10/84)
>For the sake of argument let's assume that the fact that many >children are "unadoptable" justifies abortion. Okay, but let's be clear about *why* their being "unadoptable" justifies abortion. Babies are not "unadoptable" because there aren't sufficient resources in this country (at least) to take care of them; they're unadoptable because there isn't sufficient *will* in this country to take care of them. Lots of childless couples love children very much and are more than happy to open their homes up to them-- provided, of course, that they're babies, white & in absolutely perfect health (it is my understanding that even a very minor, treatable birth defect such as one that discolors a portion of the face is sufficient to render a baby "unadoptable.") Children in this country do not grow up without food because there is not enough food to go around--that happens because not enough people care enough about children to see that all are well fed. Children do not grow up abused or neglected because there are not enough people and resources to care for them better--this happens because, again, the *will* to make this country a reasonable place for children to live is lacking. With so many children who are already alive who need all of our love and attention and care, I do not see how it is right to bring *unwanted* children into the world. There are plenty right now who very much need someone to want them--until we take care of *them,* what right do we have to add to their number? >But it only justifies >it *in those cases*. The abortion of a child somebody wants is >still totally unjustified. How does any pregnant woman or especially teenage girl (since her children are more likely to have birth defects) know that her baby is going to be sufficiently perfect to be "adoptable?" >So then is the answer to allow abortion >only for the mothers of such children? I think that this >line would generally fall along ethinic and racial boundries. We would >end up aborting the children of racial minorities way out of proportion >to their representation in society. It seems as if you are suggesting that women who suffer unwanted pregnancies should be forced to serve as breeders for predominantly white, middle class couples, simply because those couples want to be able to adopt a certain kind of child. I think it would be a lot better for predominantly white, middle class couples to stop taking such a narrow-minded view of what constitutes a loveable child. >Does the degree of "wantedness" >of a human individual by others determine their value as human beings? I'm sorry, I just don't view embryos or young fetuses as human beings--and it doesn't matter whether they're wanted or not. My sister-in-law is pregnant with my first niece/nephew who is very much a wanted child. But if my sister-in-law's health was such that she & my brother had to choose between her life & the fetus', it would be my sister-in-law who would live. You are talking as if every human & potential human had the same absolute value to his/er life--I am saying that when one chooses between the living and the unborn, the living have a greater value. >I would be nice if everyone were wanted, but I don't think the fact >that they're not makes anyone less human, less deserving of their own >chance at life. > >I think that if children of minorities are unadoptable it shows that >in the values of many there is a racial bias that is in itself, wrong. I could not agree with you more. >It seems to me that you are suggesting that we accommodate that bias >by allowing abortion in such cases. No, I am not because I am suggesting that we allow abortion in all cases in which the pregnant woman wishes it--you were constructing the hypothetical situation in which some women served as breeders for others. >But what about abortion potentially >adoptable babies? It seems we have to allow it there too so as not >to be discriminatory in our abortion policy even though abortion in >such cases would be totally unjustified by your criterion. What should >happen in cases like that in Indiana where an infant with Down's Syndrome >was allowed to starve to death at its parent's wishes when there were >couples wanting to adopt it? I have answered the bulk of this paragraph earlier. Re: the IN case. I think you are understating the dilemma that the parents of that baby faced, although I don't think that I would have made the same decision that they did. However, that was also not an abortion case. As for the people who wished to adopt that one, publicized baby, didn't anyone tell them that there are thousands of much less severely handicapped infants and children languishing in institutions? How sincere were these people? >What does this attitude do for the handicapped and the illegitimate >and poor children and adults that are with us today? Are we telling >them that it would have been better if they had been aborted (irrespective >of whether or not they are/were adopted)? I am saying that it would be better if we pay attention to *them* and stop ignoring them in favor of fetuses. We can never change their past, but there's a lot we can do for their present & future. >Sometimes I have wondered why so many insist that the government must >take on the burden of the poor and needy. Government bureaucracy has >often proven to be most expensive, least efficient, and most impersonal >way of taking care of such needs. We can always blame the government >for the poor and hungry. But I think the emphasis should be on citizen >invlovment in meeting those needs. The government treats our tax money >like an infinite resource and it's money often comes with strings attached >or the threat of its removal is used coercively. I think that if we >really cared we'd quit blaming the government and starting doing it better >ourselves. Paying our taxes is no virtue when it comes to helping >the underpriledged. I think we pay a high premium for giving government >that responsibility. It doesn't matter who's in the White House. >This is not to say that some government programs aren't justified but >I don't think they need to be the main vehicle in our efforts to help. >Surely the trend needs to be in the opposite direction. Why should you >assume that because a person doesn't think the government should be >meeting all the needs of the less priviledged they don't care about >those people at all? How do you know what they are not personally doing >to help? I looked over what I wrote, & I am not sure exactly which remark of mine prompted this discussion of government's role. I think it was my remark about Reagan's re-election. The number of anti-child & even anti-fetus things Reagan has done as president are unprecedented in our country's recent history and among Western nations. However, I am not sure that this is the time or the place to get into all that--the election is over. Basically, though, I think we need to remember that the government did not just arbitrarily get involved in things like the recently cut WIC program-- it got involved because there was a need that no one was meeting. Many of the social programs that were cut (again, like WIC) were quite well-run and incredibly cost-effective, so it is a little hard to believe that people who could cheerfully countenance the end of that program (especially so that we'd have more missile money) cared more about women, infants and children than killing Russians. Besides, even if you have personally created, in your community, a far superior pre- & post-natal nutrition program to WIC, you haven't been able to reach the whole country, which is one thing the federal government can do better than virtually any other group. Also, private charities offer their funds just as coercively (if not more so) than the government, so I am not sure that that's a legitimate complaint against government involvement. However, if you don't think the government is properly involved in feeding people, why do you think its proper role is to force women to give birth, especially when (as I think you would be the first to acknowledge) it cannot force those same women to *care* for their children? >This assumes that parenthood starts at birth. >You can't argue with that assumption as a given because that >is the crux of the abortion issue. I can & do assume that the nurturing responsibilities of parents begin at birth, & from birth on, the kind of commitment the parents feel toward their child is critical to that child. Pregnant women can best nurture their fetuses by taking care of themselves (which is something I would hope all women would do in any event)--the unique, nurturing role of parents does not start *until* the child is born. >Pregnancy is only involuntary as the result of rape. I must say, Mr. Dubuc, that you have been one of the kindest and most thoughtful anti-abortionists to respond to my article (Mr. Hummel was the other), but this, Mr. Dubuc, is absolutely untrue and beneath you. Pregnancy is FREQUENTLY involuntary. Birth control devices can & do fail. What about all of those women who thought they were protecting themselves from pregnancy by using the Dalkon shield IUD? What about those women who took those fake birth control pills? Aside from "mechanical failures," people can simply make inadvertent mistakes. Pregnancy is OFTEN an accident. Would you make the same kind of claim for any other accident? Is every plane or car crash that involves human error somehow *not* an accident? And what about pregnancies that are caused by total ignorance? Teenagers in this country are systematically kept from understanding how their bodies work. *MANY* teenagers really believe that they can't get pregnant if they're standing up, if it's their first time, if they use a Coca-Cola douche, if they use any kind of a douche, if they use spermicide the morning after, if they insert their birth control pills in their vaginas, etc. Their ignorance is absolutely appalling and something many of the most avid anti-abortionists wish to *promote*. Phyllis Schlafly has announced that her next nationwide goal will be to *eliminate* sex ed from the classroom. >Nobody is saying that voluntary >sex has only to do with pregnancy, but you can't assume it has nothing >to do with it either. Is the desire to have uncommitted sex really >the motive behind legal abortion? Is the desire to punish people who do have uncommitted sex really the motive behind making abortion illegal? If so, you're using children as pawns with which to punish their parents. And using children as pawns is not the same thing as believing that fetuses have some kind of absolute right to survival. I really think that a lot of people do want to force women to bear children as punishment and I think the statistics back me up. If fetuses should be saved no matter what, then it shouldn't matter whether the pregnant woman has been raped or is the victim of incest. But, according to a poll published by THE NEW YORK TIMES, about 35% more people support abortions for victims of rape and/or incest than support abortion on demand. If you want to punish people who have uncommitted sex, then you should be honest about it, you should find a way that doesn't use children for your purposes, and you should find a way that punishes men as much as women. >When they don't give them the choice of whether or not to live we >but them in big trouble. Are you saying that because parents make >most choices for young children they have the right to decide if >they should die? I am not saying that parents should be allowed to choose whether or not they can kill their living children, but that they should be allowed to choose whether they have any in the first place. >But that assumption is thrown out when the child's health is >endangered by the parent. Child, yes; fetus, no. >If they had the choice between that and death? Are there any >other choices? The truth of the matter is that no one really >knows with any given child how well they will value their life >in any given situation. Why are you making that decision for >them before they even have a chance to make it for themselves? >No one ever gets to choose where they are born. Yet here you >are acting as if that choice were possible for the child, you >insert your own conclusion as its decision. I agree that I cannot speak for all fetuses who were aborted, but neither can you. We could agree to disagree & turn our attention toward children who are alive and need our attention. You seem to think it is more important to worry about fetuses. >What good has abortion on demand done for child abuse statistics? >Can you show us? Is there any correlation between how much >parents want the pregnanacy and how much they want the child after >it's born? Two can play this came of inference also. The free >availability of abortion might actually encourage attitudes that >foster child abuse. Once the child is born the "choice" of parent- >hood is suddenly gone. When the going gets rough there might be >temption to think that this loss of choice is unfair. After all, >they didn't really know what to expect, and if they had only >thought about it a few months earlier they could have nipped >their problems in the bud. It's easy for resentment to build >against the child. If the child is abused, it's taken away >and society supports it. There you have an abused child that >was "wanted" during pregnancy. You may rightly argue that I >have presented no data to support this connection. But that is >my point. You have presented none to support yours either. >Has child abuse really become less of a problem in the 13 years >that we have had abortion on demand? I know that child abuse has been an under-reported & unacknowledged problem for a long, long time. There simply are not good statistics available for *today* much less for 10 or 20 years ago. The most common one available for today is that child abuse exists in one out of six homes. Although child abuse certainly happens in well-to-do and middle income households, a sudden drop in income is frequently taken out on children, which is why recessions always lead to an increase in the number of child abuse cases. There is also proportionately more child abuse in houses that have lower incomes. What *is* clearly set forth in statistics is that teenage mothers generally make bad mothers--nearly 70% of them abuse (or so severely neglect their children that it's counted as abuse) their children, and contrary to your assertion, I think most teenage pregnancies are involuntary. Teenagers & other poor women do not have access (or have limited access) to abortions for financial reasons. Teenagers and other poor women also have limited access to information about birth control for economic reasons. Therefore, while there is a correlation among being poor, having children one does not want, and abusing one's children, I can't say that it's a cause and effect relationship, no. But I think our first obligation is to the children who are here, and being abused now--not to fetuses who may well end up in the same position. >Does all this really mean that people are wrong to oppose abortion? >You might argue rightly that they are somewhat hyprocritical, but >what a hypocrite says may still be right. My wife and I can answer >"yes" to many the above questions and know many pro-life people >who could say "yes" to the rest of them. Partially because of >that we don't have time to picket clinics (though some have). There seem to be at least two major anti-abortion movements in this country. There is the vocal one--that pickets and/or bombs clinics; associates itself with pro-nuclear, pro-military groups; lobbies against disseminating information about contraceptives; lobbies against tougher child-abuse laws; is blatantly misogynist; lobbies against regulating industries whose hazardous wastes cause spontanteous abortions and/or birth defects; lobbies against government-sponsored programs to nourish poor, pregnant women; etc., etc.--and there is the quieter one. You say that your anti-abortionist friends are not like the noisy one. If that is so, then why do you allow the current anti-abortion lobby to speak for you? Why do you not disassociate yourself from them? Loudly? People will not respect a message broadcast by blatant hypocrites, or at least, they won't respect it for long. >If you are pro-choice, how may of your own questions can you answer? Well, I've only been married for two months. And my husband and I currently can't even live in the same state. Just how many kids do you think we should have adopted by now? My point was that if you're going to force people to have kids, then *you* ought to be willing to take care of them. And you ought to be able to show how willing and able you *are* to take care of such kids by showing that you've essentially done everything necessary for the ones who came before. I've never advocated forcing anyone to have kids. >How much help the Planned Parenthood give to couples who *want* to >have children rather than prevent them? Planned Parenthood is not & has never claimed to be a center for total gynecological care. Its primary mission *is* to deliver birth control devices/information to women. The other kinds of things it does (PAP smears, VD tests & info on pre-natal care) are low-cost, low tech services that PP can easily offer in addition to its birth control mission. Fertility clinics are fairly specialized, expensive and often high tech operations. You are essentially criticizing PP for not being something that it never claimed to be--it makes about as much sense to hassle MIT for not offering a good liberal arts education. >I know a woman who went >to PP for birth control and received help with that (and we all help >them with part of our tax money don't we?) No. >but when she wanted to get >pregnant they told her she was on her own. Is this offering equal >support for both choices? The PP clinic here provides not-for-profit >abortions but in cases where people *want* to have children and >have problems they are on their own ... and they are the "pro-lifer's" >problem. I hate to burden you with the views of your vocal anti-abortion friends throughout the country, but a lot of anti-abortionists get pretty bent out of shape with fertility clinics also--some of the techno- logical innovations that these clinics have pioneered to help the infertile are highly disturbing to anti-abortionists. I will leave it to them to explain why to you ('cause I don't know), but I don't think a lot of anti-abortionists see fertility problems as their own. >Or are we going to help them with the attitude that "it >would be best if you had had an abortion but..." You do very well >to point out the uncaring attitude of many pro-lifers but don't you >think these issues cut both ways for pro-choicers too? Who said that people who were pro-choice were against fertility clinics? Most of the protest comes from anti-abortionists; not from us. >It is only consistent for pro-lifers to care just as much for the born >as the unborn and I think, as a people, they do. Not all pro-life people >picket clinics. Some work in pregnancy distress centers like my wife >and Liz. Some are involved in combatting child abuse (or did you think >only pro-choice people did that?) When Jesse Helms & the Moral Majority give up all idea of their infamous "Family Protection Act" *or* when the bulk of anti-abortionists disavow that group, I will believe that anti-abortionists care about child abuse. Until then, your efforts to combat child abuse are countered by your allies' efforts to *promote* it. >and some are helping in prisions where >a lot of those kids end up (like Charles Colson -- I know he's pro-life). >His Prision Fellowship organization is more active in meeting the needs >of prisoners and pushing for criminal justice reform than many I can >think of. You seem to require an equal level of involvement in all >these areas from every pro-life individual (at least the ones who picket >PP -- Was Liz one of them?) No, I don't "require" an "equal level of involvement." My point is that making moral decisions almost invariably involves setting moral priorities. I cannot understand how someone could think that a fetus is more of a moral priority than a living human being. I don't think anti-abortionists should "care just as much for the born as for the unborn;" I think they should care a lot more for the born. >Do you have the same standard for yourself? I think that my standards are more consistent than yours & I think that I take greater pains to openly disassociate myself from people whose values are radically different than my own. I have not, for instance, quoted Margaret Sanger because she believed in eugenics and was an elitist, & I do not buy that aspect of her theories. >After all your burden should be lighter. You need care only about the >"living", not the unborn. We have to consider the unborn a subset of the >living. All the areas you mention are important. But if the unborn >are included in the "living" then they are equally important. Again, I disagree with the word "equally." >In a subsequent article to this one you make a plea for fraternal discussion >of this issue. No, my husband did (I know it's confusing). He's a nicer person than I am, which is no doubt evidenced by the fact that he married me. >It's a very worthwile goal, but you need to help too. >Perhaps, from your own standpoint, you can see how hard this is. >It seems that you have used your experience with name calling, clinic >bombing "pro-lifers" And my knowledge of the spokespeople of the anti-abortion movement. >to brow beat Liz in this case. Fraternity requires >that we treat each other as individuals and not bring the "sins" of other >people on them. Ms. Allen not only did not disassociate herself from the major spokespeople of the anti-abortion movement, she cited their propaganda uncritically. How was I to know that she was somehow different? However, if I was rude, I apologize. >It is hard to convey a civil tone in writing, especially >on issues like this. I have been read as being angry when I thought >I was making an effort to sound reasonable. Clearly I need more practice, >but I have learned to give others the benefit of my doubts. As I said before, Mr. Dubuc, you & Mr. Hummel have been, by far, the most thoughtful and civil respondents who were anti-abortionists, and my husband and I appreciate your time & effort.